Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Edillon v. Manila Bankers Life Assurance, 117 SCRA 187 (1982)

    Uploaded by

    Sopongco Coleen
    39 views1 page
    Edillon v. Manila Bankers Life Insurance Corp. involved a claim on an insurance policy taken out by Carmen Lapuz. When applying for the policy, Carmen stated her date of birth accurately as July 11, 1904, which would have made her around 64 years old. Manila Bankers later refused to pay out the claim, citing a policy provision excluding coverage for those under 16 or over 60. The court ruled that Manila Bankers could not refuse the claim, as Carmen had accurately disclosed her age and Manila Bankers still approved the policy and accepted premiums. By failing to act given Carmen's stated age, Manila Bankers waived the age qualification or overlooked it, and was therefore estopped from denying liability.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Edillon v. Manila Bankers Life Insurance Corp. involved a claim on an insurance policy taken out by Carmen Lapuz. When applying for the policy, Carmen stated her date of birth accurately as July 11, 1904, which would have made her around 64 years old. Manila Bankers later refused to pay out the claim, citing a policy provision excluding coverage for those under 16 or over 60. The court ruled that Manila Bankers could not refuse the claim, as Carmen had accurately disclosed her age and Manila Bankers still approved the policy and accepted premiums. By failing to act given Carmen's stated age, Manila Bankers waived the age qualification or overlooked it, and was therefore estopped from denying liability.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    39 views1 page

    Edillon v. Manila Bankers Life Assurance, 117 SCRA 187 (1982)

    Uploaded by

    Sopongco Coleen
    Edillon v. Manila Bankers Life Insurance Corp. involved a claim on an insurance policy taken out by Carmen Lapuz. When applying for the policy, Carmen stated her date of birth accurately as July 11, 1904, which would have made her around 64 years old. Manila Bankers later refused to pay out the claim, citing a policy provision excluding coverage for those under 16 or over 60. The court ruled that Manila Bankers could not refuse the claim, as Carmen had accurately disclosed her age and Manila Bankers still approved the policy and accepted premiums. By failing to act given Carmen's stated age, Manila Bankers waived the age qualification or overlooked it, and was therefore estopped from denying liability.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Edillon v. Manila Bankers Life Insurance Corp.

    - Concealment

    117 SCRA 187

    Facts:

    In Apr. 1969, Carmen Lapuz applied for insurance with Manila Bankers. In the application she stated
    the date of her birth as July 11, 1904 (around 64 yrs old). The policy was thereafter issued.

    Subsequently, in May 1969, Carmen died of a car accident. Her sister, as beneficiary claimed the
    proceeds of the insurance.

    Manila Bankers refused to pay because the certificate of insurance contained a provision excluding it’s
    liability to pay claims to persons under 16 or over 60.

    Issue:

    Whether or not the policy is void considering that the insured was over 60 when she applied.

    Held:

    NO.

    The age of Carmen was not concealed to the insurance company. Her application form indicated her
    true age. Despite such information, Manila Bankers accepted the premium and issued the policy. It had
    all the time to process the application and notice the applicant’s age. If it failed to act, it was because
    Manila Bankers was willing to waive such disqualifications or it simply overlooked such fact. It is
    therefore estopped from disclaiming any liability.

    You might also like